* Helmut Grohne <helmut at subdivi.de> [161003 23:10]:
> On Mon, Oct 03, 2016 at 11:13:13AM +0200, Emmanuel Bourg wrote:
> > What is the expected contract for a package providing ruby-interpreter?
>> I wish I could tell. Judging from
>https://wiki.debian.org/Teams/Ruby/Packaging, it seems that
> ruby-interpreter requires /usr/bin/ruby. Not sure how official that is.
>> > Do it just have to offer a /usr/bin/ruby alternative?
Given that ruby-interpreter is listed as an alternative to ruby,
anything that provides ruby-interpreter needs to have at least all
the binaries from ruby. The harder part is actually having these
binaries work with the libraries that depend on ruby-interpreter.
(They are installed into shared and/or versioned directories and may
ship .so files.)
> I'm not sure we currently support non-default ruby implementations.
> Which indicates that jruby should simply drop the provides.
I do not think it is feasible today to ship a ruby implementation
that provides ruby-interpreter without (some form of) support in
gem2deb.
Best is probably to just drop the Provides in jruby.
--
,''`. Christian Hofstaedtler <zeha at debian.org>
: :' : Debian Developer
`. `' 7D1A CFFA D9E0 806C 9C4C D392 5C13 D6DB 9305 2E03
`-